Mental disability groups protest 'Tropic Thunder'

meistereder

MrSmith wrote:

i think thats pretty ridiculous though. once one word is considered politically incorrect, people will just use a new one until its banned too. why not fight the ignorance behind it instead changing the word every few years. ARC is still Association of Retarded Citizens.

Right. See, it's easier to attack the word. As I said, my mother, a retired special ed teacher, used to use the word retarded in her professional life on a daily basis. At some point, that word became less favored.

It's just like the words deaf and blind. There is nothing inherently wrong with those words. They are simple and to the point. It's just that we don't like the way they sound anymore.

jwillmo

Jeanwah wrote:

I think a lot of people are missing the point.

What Hollywood is doing is glorifying a derogatory word. I'll repeat that -- a DEROGATORY word. To all that feel the 'Retard' word is just a word, try having a family member who is mentally challenged, or even physically handicapped, and see if that word means the same thing to you.

It doesn't matter how the word is used, "retarded" is picking fun of those who have disabilities. It all stems back to the original slang usage and that is making fun of everyone who has some kind of impairment. Hollywood, and Ben Stiller, is saying that it is acceptable to use it, which is WRONG. These people who aren't "with it" are typically better people who have more sense than so-called "normal" people.

I, like the OP, has a child with Down syndrome. This kind of stuff takes on a whole new meaning when it falls into your life suddenly and really brings on a whole new world to deal with. And that world can be pretty cruel. Have some respect please, and treat everyone like you'd treat yourself!!

I have a Hell of a situation to fight for the rest of my daughter's life and that is that she is just like everyone else, and she should be treated with the same respect as everyone else!

Pretty ironic how you say people are "missing the point" and then go on to completely miss the point yourself.

I am sick to death of when a character in a movie does something, people say it's glorifying it. The characters in the movie say "retard", but the characters themselves are SUPPOSED to be reprehensible. What in the holy hell are you talking about when you say "Ben Stiller is saying that it is acceptable to use it." I don't see how having a completely unlikeable character say something offensive is somehow condoning it. Is it really that damn difficult to discern between characters in a movie and the actors that protray them for some of you people? I never would have thought that satire in a Ben Stiller movie would actually be too smart and go over people's head's this badly, but that seems to be the direction society's going these days.

THE JOKES IN THE FILM ARE NOT AT THE EXPENSE OF THE HANDICAPPED. THEY ARE AT THE EXPENSE OF SELF-CENTERED ACTORS WHO WOULD USE UNDERPRIVELEGED AS A SPRINGBOARD FOR THEIR OWN EGOTISTICAL CAREERS. I DON'T KNOW HOW MORE PLAINLY THIS CAN BE EXPRESSED.

Your situation is horrible, I'm sure, but for the love of God there are so many more fruitful ways to express the plight of your situation than a MOVIE that's central theme actually agrees with you, that hollywood takes advantage of the handicapped, etc, for their own selfish reasons.

Another level of irony is that the African-American community doesn't seem to be up in arms about Robert Downey Jr being in blackface for the entire movie. Maybe because they actually freaking understand the context of the film and its message.

NMyTree

This thread is getting retarded.

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

jwillmo wrote:

Pretty ironic how you say people are "missing the point" and then go on to completely miss the point yourself.

I am sick to death of when a character in a movie does something, people say it's glorifying it. The characters in the movie say "retard", but the characters themselves are SUPPOSED to be reprehensible. What in the holy hell are you talking about when you say "Ben Stiller is saying that it is acceptable to use it." I don't see how having a completely unlikeable character say something offensive is somehow condoning it. Is it really that damn difficult to discern between characters in a movie and the actors that protray them for some of you people? I never would have thought that satire in a Ben Stiller movie would actually be too smart and go over people's head's this badly, but that seems to be the direction society's going these days.

THE JOKES IN THE FILM ARE NOT AT THE EXPENSE OF THE HANDICAPPED. THEY ARE AT THE EXPENSE OF SELF-CENTERED ACTORS WHO WOULD USE UNDERPRIVELEGED AS A SPRINGBOARD FOR THEIR OWN EGOTISTICAL CAREERS. I DON'T KNOW HOW MORE PLAINLY THIS CAN BE EXPRESSED.


Another level of irony is that the African-American community doesn't seem to be up in arms about Robert Downey Jr being in blackface for the entire movie. Maybe because they actually freaking understand the context of the film and its message.

i agree, even if you are being kind of a dick about it.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

I'm still going to watch this movie and laugh my ass off....

maybe even some maniacal deep belly empirical type laughter...accompanied by evil grinning

Jeanwah

jwillmo wrote:

Pretty ironic how you say people are "missing the point" and then go on to completely miss the point yourself.

I am sick to death of when a character in a movie does something, people say it's glorifying it. The characters in the movie say "retard", but the characters themselves are SUPPOSED to be reprehensible. What in the holy hell are you talking about when you say "Ben Stiller is saying that it is acceptable to use it." I don't see how having a completely unlikeable character say something offensive is somehow condoning it. Is it really that damn difficult to discern between characters in a movie and the actors that protray them for some of you people? I never would have thought that satire in a Ben Stiller movie would actually be too smart and go over people's head's this badly, but that seems to be the direction society's going these days.

THE JOKES IN THE FILM ARE NOT AT THE EXPENSE OF THE HANDICAPPED. THEY ARE AT THE EXPENSE OF SELF-CENTERED ACTORS WHO WOULD USE UNDERPRIVELEGED AS A SPRINGBOARD FOR THEIR OWN EGOTISTICAL CAREERS. I DON'T KNOW HOW MORE PLAINLY THIS CAN BE EXPRESSED.

No, I'm afraid you're still missing my point. Hollywood in general, by putting a movie out, with slang like this is representing American culture. I understand what you're saying, the characters are making fun of themselves, but movies are for entertainment and pop culture value. Mainstream America watch these movies and think that they're not only being dumb and funny, but also best represents how we look at ourselves, and therefore everything in mainstream movies are societal norms or soon become one. And this movie is portraying an ignorant one. Hollywood IS to blame. If you've seen The Ringer, this movie also makes fun of mentally challenged people, but at the same time, you also see the goodness and a realistic portrayal of those w/ mental challenges and that they're really a lot like the rest of us so-called "normal" folk. Does this movie do the same thing or just make fun of people because they're different? The latter, I believe, is why this movie is controversial.

Your situation is horrible, I'm sure, but for the love of God there are so many more fruitful ways to express the plight of your situation than a MOVIE that's central theme actually agrees with you, that hollywood takes advantage of the handicapped, etc, for their own selfish reasons.

Dude, my situation is NOT HORRIBLE. Go out and get to know someone with Down syndrome and learn some life lessons. Sounds like you know NO ONE who has a disability. It's very obvious.

Kel Varnsen

Jeanwah wrote:

Hollywood IS to blame. If you've seen The Ringer, this movie also makes fun of mentally challenged people, but at the same time, you also see the goodness and a realistic portrayal of those w/ mental challenges and that they're really a lot like the rest of us so-called "normal" folk.

I saw The Ringer, and it seemed to me the person they were making fun of was Johnny Knoxville's character. The people with disabilities were portrayed in a better light then anyone else in the movie.

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

Jeanwah wrote:

No, I'm afraid you're still missing my point. Hollywood in general, by putting a movie out, with slang like this is representing American culture. I understand what you're saying, the characters are making fun of themselves, but movies are for entertainment and pop culture value. Mainstream America watch these movies and think that they're not only being dumb and funny, but also best represents how we look at ourselves, and therefore everything in mainstream movies are societal norms or soon become one. And this movie is portraying an ignorant one. Hollywood IS to blame. If you've seen The Ringer, this movie also makes fun of mentally challenged people, but at the same time, you also see the goodness and a realistic portrayal of those w/ mental challenges and that they're really a lot like the rest of us so-called "normal" folk. Does this movie do the same thing or just make fun of people because they're different? The latter, I believe, is why this movie is controversial.




Dude, my situation is NOT HORRIBLE. Go out and get to know someone with Down syndrome and learn some life lessons. Sounds like you know NO ONE who has a disability. It's very obvious.

i agree with you about the Ringer, but i dont think showing stupid characters calling each other 'retards' is somehow convincing the audience that its ok. In fact, it should do just the opposite. if the audience really is too stupid to get it, then we're all in trouble. It sounds too much like a ridiculous quota to dictate that if a character says "retard" in a movie, then they have to show a positive portrayal of a handicapped person, even if it has nothing to do with the story.

but yeah, the situation certainly isnt horrible. heh, i didnt include that when i agreed with him. its kinda hard to get that without experience.

Jeanwah

Kel Varnsen wrote:

I saw The Ringer, and it seemed to me the person they were making fun of was Johnny Knoxville's character. The people with disabilities were portrayed in a better light then anyone else in the movie.

EXACTLY my point.

Kel Varnsen

Jeanwah wrote:

EXACTLY my point.

Really because you said The Ringer "makes fun of mentally challenged " which I didn't think it did at all. And if you remember that movie had some controversy around it too because a lot of people judged it before seeing it. I think this movie is just getting more because it is a bigger movie that has bigger stars.

jwillmo

Jeanwah wrote:

No, I'm afraid you're still missing my point. Hollywood in general, by putting a movie out, with slang like this is representing American culture. I understand what you're saying, the characters are making fun of themselves, but movies are for entertainment and pop culture value. Mainstream America watch these movies and think that they're not only being dumb and funny, but also best represents how we look at ourselves, and therefore everything in mainstream movies are societal norms or soon become one. And this movie is portraying an ignorant one. Hollywood IS to blame. If you've seen The Ringer, this movie also makes fun of mentally challenged people, but at the same time, you also see the goodness and a realistic portrayal of those w/ mental challenges and that they're really a lot like the rest of us so-called "normal" folk. Does this movie do the same thing or just make fun of people because they're different? The latter, I believe, is why this movie is controversial.




Dude, my situation is NOT HORRIBLE. Go out and get to know someone with Down syndrome and learn some life lessons. Sounds like you know NO ONE who has a disability. It's very obvious.

Wow, it is really hard to talk about this when you talk like this. For fuck's sake, I was reacting to your EXACT quote "I have a hell of a situation". I'm sorry for assuming that "hell" meant horrible, which is usually what one means when using that phrase. And to help you with your supreme presumptiousness here, a girl I work with who I'm good friends with has a small child with Down's syndrome, and both he and his parents are wonderful people I love dearly, so you can stop using that as an argument right now. And I guaruntee they have no problems with Tropic Thunder (in fact, I'm probably seeing it with THEM this weekend).

The reason why there are no handicapped people shown is a positive light to counteract it is because that's not what the movie is about (whereas that WAS what The Ringer was about). Yes, there will be some people who will not be able to see the context because of their own ignorance. But we can't dumb down society to their level just because they wouldn't be able to understand that context. I for one don't want society to fall to its lowest common demominator.

I'm sorry if I seem insensitive, but this has really been getting to me as of late, people thinking that just because there is a reference to something in a film it somehow condones it. It is really stifling the creativity of films these days, which is a medium I love almost as much as music.

Jeanwah

Kel Varnsen wrote:

Really because you said The Ringer "makes fun of mentally challenged " which I didn't think it did at all. And if you remember that movie had some controversy around it too because a lot of people judged it before seeing it. I think this movie is just getting more because it is a bigger movie that has bigger stars.

Johnny Knoxville's character set out to make himself look like the stereotypical person who's mentally challenged. So, yes, it did make fun of the stereotypical vision. And you could be right about Stiller's film. But The Ringer didn't get nationwide protests like this one is getting I remember.

jwillmo

MrSmith wrote:

i agree, even if you are being kind of a dick about it.

Yeah, this is getting me a little too worked up. Over a comedy! Sorry about my dickishness.

I really would like to have this discussion after everyone's actually seen the damn thing though. That's what gets me the most worked up.

Kel Varnsen

Jeanwah wrote:

Johnny Knoxville's character set out to make himself look like the stereotypical person who's mentally challenged. So, yes, it did make fun of the stereotypical vision. And you could be right about Stiller's film. But The Ringer didn't get nationwide protests like this one is getting I remember.

The reason you didn't hear about it was because I am pretty sure the studio buried it once the controversy started up because they were scared, even though the movie was given a positive review by the Special Olympics. I think just because a character is making fun of mentally challenged people, doesn't necessarily mean the movie is, or that you are supposed to laugh at their expense.

jwillmo

Jeanwah wrote:

Johnny Knoxville's character set out to make himself look like the stereotypical person who's mentally challenged. So, yes, it did make fun of the stereotypical vision. And you could be right about Stiller's film. But The Ringer didn't get nationwide protests like this one is getting I remember.

Ugh. So because it's being protested, the protesters must be right?

BTW, the CNN headline I saw was "Dozens protest Tropic Thunder." I wonder how many of those "dozens" actually saw it?

NMyTree

For god's sake, you people really know how to suck the fun out of what is simply a goofy, satirical movie.

All this over-analyzing and digging......sheesh. If you don't like these type of movies, don't fucking go see it. No one's going to force you to watch it.

If you have a fucking sense of humor and are void of an enormous stick up your ass, then go see it. It's silly, stupid and funny.

Jeanwah

jwillmo wrote:

Wow, it is really hard to talk about this when you talk like this. For fuck's sake, I was reacting to your EXACT quote "I have a hell of a situation". I'm sorry for assuming that "hell" meant horrible, which is usually what one means when using that phrase. And to help you with your supreme presumptiousness here, a girl I work with who I'm good friends with has a small child with Down's syndrome, and both he and his parents are wonderful people I love dearly, so you can stop using that as an argument right now. And I guaruntee they have no problems with Tropic Thunder (in fact, I'm probably seeing it with THEM this weekend).

I do have a Hell of a situation...it's called the road less traveled, it's called the "fighting for individual rights" road. However, it is not horrible; it's actually quite enlightening albeit trying and difficult at times as a parent. It's a LOT of work, but very rewarding, my daughter is incredible.

I'm sorry if I seem insensitive, but this has really been getting to me as of late, people thinking that just because there is a reference to something in a film it somehow condones it. It is really stifling the creativity of films these days, which is a medium I love almost as much as music.

Do you really feel that films in the last 5 years are at all creative? Because Hollywood seems to only recycle films from the past and on sequeling successful films. That's not creativity, that's a lack of some serious talent and creativity in the Hollywood movie industry. Ben Stiller may be trying, but he may be the only one.

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

jwillmo wrote:

Yeah, this is getting me a little too worked up. Over a comedy! Sorry about my dickishness.

I really would like to have this discussion after everyone's actually seen the damn thing though. That's what gets me the most worked up.

yeah, i'm pretty much done talking about it until i see it. this movie doesnt deserve so much attention anyway. i fucking hate Ben Stiller.

norm

It would be easier all around, obviously, if we lived in a culture where the potentially offensive and the undeniably comedic weren't linked as closely as they are, but contemporary moviegoers don't have that choice. You pays your money and you takes your chances. It's as simple, and as complex, as that.

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-et-tropic13-2008aug13,0,1300437.story

jwillmo

Jeanwah wrote:

I do have a Hell of a situation...it's called the road less traveled, it's called the "fighting for individual rights" road. However, it is not horrible; it's actually quite enlightening albeit trying and difficult at times as a parent. It's a LOT of work, but very rewarding, my daughter is incredible.


Do you really feel that films in the last 5 years are at all creative? Because Hollywood seems to only recycle films from the past and on sequeling successful films. That's not creativity, that's a lack of some serious talent and creativity in the Hollywood movie industry. Ben Stiller may be trying, but he may be the only one.

Well you've got me there. Okay, if you don't think Hell is horrible, then I'm sorry and will retract my statement. I am sorry for your "hell of a situation," and I'm sure your daughter is wonderful and, of course, definitely deserves to be treated just like everyone. However, as I said originally, the point of the film is actually YOUR point, that Hollywood is largely lacking in decency when it comes to treating the historically disadvantaged (it also dives into its treatment of African Americans through the Robert Downey Jr character) as simply a means to further their careers under the guise that they actually give a shit. They get so wrapped up in winning awards, etc, that they get caught in the middle of a war during a movie shoot and don't even realize it.

And yes, there are many small rays of creativity shining through. Hell, The Dark Knight was a major studio film, and it was crammed so full of great, creative ideas (visually, thematically, etc) I thought it was going to burst at the seems. And despite it's lofty goals, it's also extremely popular. So I still hold out hope. Yes, the majority of studio films are crap, but I really feel the need to defend a movie like Tropic Thunder, which has some ideas of its own. And it's damn funny!